Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Columbia Investigation”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2005

Followup to Columbia Investigation: Reinforced Carbon/Carbon From the Breach Location in the Wing Leading Edge Studied

Initial estimates on the temperature and conditions of the breach in the Space Shuttle Columbia's wing focused on analyses of the slag deposits. These deposits are complex mixtures of the reinforced carbon/carbon (RCC) constituents, insulation material, and wing structural materials. Identification of melted/solidified Cerachrome insulation (Thermal Ceramics, Inc., Augusta, GA) indicated that the temperatures at the breach had exceeded 1760 C.

Jacobson, Nathan S.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board's independent investigation into the tragic February 1, 2003, loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and its seven-member crew lasted nearly seven months and involved 13 Board members, approximately 120 Board investigators, and thousands of NASA and support personnel. Because the events that initiated the accident were not apparent for some time, the investigation's depth and breadth were unprecedented in NASA history. Further, the Board determined early in the investigation that it intended to put this accident into context. We considered it unlikely that the accident was a random event; rather, it was likely related in some degree to NASA's budgets, history, and program culture, as well as to the politics, compromises, and changing priorities of the democratic process. We are convinced that the management practices overseeing the Space Shuttle Program were as much a cause of the accident as the foam that struck the left wing. The Board was also influenced by discussions with members of Congress, who suggested that this nation needed a broad examination of NASA's Human Space Flight Program, rather than just an investigation into what physical fault caused Columbia to break up during re-entry. Findings and recommendations are in the relevant chapters and all recommendations are compiled in Chapter 11. Volume I is organized into four parts: The Accident; Why the Accident Occurred; A Look Ahead; and various appendices. To put this accident in context, Parts One and Two begin with histories, after which the accident is described and then analyzed, leading to findings and recommendations. Part Three contains the Board's views on what is needed to improve the safety of our voyage into space. Part Four is reference material. In addition to this first volume, there will be subsequent volumes that contain technical reports generated by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and NASA, as well as volumes containing reference documentation and other related material.

Gehman, Harold W., Jr.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Techniques and Tools of NASA's Space Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation

The Space Shuttle Columbia accident investigation was a fusion of many disciplines into a single effort. From the recovery and reconstruction of the debris, Figure 1, to the analysis, both destructive and nondestructive, of chemical and metallurgical samples, Figure 2, a multitude of analytical techniques and tools were employed. Destructive and non-destructive testing were utilized in tandem to determine if a breach in the left wing of the Orbiter had occurred, and if so, the path of the resultant high temperature plasma flow. Nondestructive analysis included topometric scanning, laser mapping, and real-time radiography. These techniques were useful in constructing a three dimensional virtual representation of the reconstruction project, specifically the left wing leading edge reinforced carbon/carbon heat protectant panels. Similarly, they were beneficial in determining where sampling should be performed on the debris. Analytic testing included such techniques as Energy Dispersive Electron Microprobe Analysis (EMPA), Electron Spectroscopy Chemical Analysis (ESCA), and X-Ray dot mapping; these techniques related the characteristics of intermetallics deposited on the leading edge of the left wing adjacent to the location of a suspected plasma breach during reentry. The methods and results of the various analyses, along with their implications into the accident, are discussed, along with the findings and recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Likewise, NASA's Return To Flight efforts are highlighted.

McDanels, Steve J.↗
NASA NTRS2006

Characterization of Space Shuttle Thermal Protection System (TPS) Materials for Return-to-Flight following the Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation

During the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation, it was determined that a large chunk of polyurethane insulating foam (= 1.67 lbs) on the External Tank (ET) came loose during Columbia's ascent on 2-1-03. The foam piece struck some of the protective Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) panels on the leading edge of Columbia's left wing in the mid-wing area. This impact damaged Columbia to the extent that upon re-entry to Earth, superheGed air approaching 3,000 F caused the vehicle to break up, killing all seven astronauts on board. A paper after the Columbia Accident Investigation highlighted thermal analysis testing performed on External Tank TPS materials (1). These materials included BX-250 (now BX-265) rigid polyurethane foam and SLA-561 Super Lightweight Ablator (highly-filled silicone rubber). The large chunk of foam from Columbia originated fiom the left bipod ramp of the ET. The foam in this ramp area was hand-sprayed over the SLA material and various fittings, allowed to dry, and manually shaved into a ramp shape. In Return-to-Flight (RTF) efforts following Columbia, the decision was made to remove the foam in the bipod ramp areas. During RTF efforts, further thermal analysis testing was performed on BX-265 foam by DSC and DMA. Flat panels of foam about 2-in. thick were sprayed on ET tank material (aluminum alloys). The DSC testing showed that foam material very close to the metal substrate cured more slowly than bulk foam material. All of the foam used on the ET is considered fully cured about 21 days after it is sprayed. The RTF culminated in the successful launch of Space Shuttle Discovery on 7-26-05. Although the flight was a success, there was another serious incident of foam loss fiom the ET during Shuttle ascent. This time, a rather large chunk of BX-265 foam (= 0.9 lbs) came loose from the liquid hydrogen (LH2) PAL ramp, although the foam did not strike the Shuttle Orbiter containing the crew. DMA testing was performed on foam samples taken fiom a simulated PAL ramp panel. It was found that the smooth rind on the foam facing the cable tray did significantly affect the properties of foam at the PAL ramp surface. The smooth rind increased the storage modulus E' of the foam as much as 20- 40% over a temperature range of -145 to 95 C. Because of foam loss fiom the PAL ramp, future Shuttle flights were grounded indefinitely to allow further testing to better understand foam properties. The decision was also made to remove foam from the LH2 PAL, ramp. Other RTF efforts prior to the launch of Discovery included

Wingard, Doug↗
NASA NTRS2003

Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Volume One

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board's independent investigation into the February 1, 2003, loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and its seven-member crew lasted nearly seven months. A staff of more than 120, along with some 400 NASA engineers, supported the Board's 13 members. Investigators examined more than 30,000 documents, conducted more than 200 formal interviews, heard testimony from dozens of expert witnesses, and reviewed more than 3,000 inputs from the general public. In addition, more than 25,000 searchers combed vast stretches of the Western United States to retrieve the spacecraft's debris. In the process, Columbia's tragedy was compounded when two debris searchers with the U.S. Forest Service perished in a helicopter accident. This report concludes with recommendations, some of which are specifically identified and prefaced as 'before return to flight.' These recommendations are largely related to the physical cause of the accident, and include preventing the loss of foam, improved imaging of the Space Shuttle stack from liftoff through separation of the External Tank, and on-orbit inspection and repair of the Thermal Protection System. The remaining recommendations, for the most part, stem from the Board's findings on organizational cause factors. While they are not 'before return to flight' recommendations, they can be viewed as 'continuing to fly' recommendations, as they capture the Board's thinking on what changes are necessary to operate the Shuttle and future spacecraft safely in the mid- to long-term. These recommendations reflect both the Board's strong support for return to flight at the earliest date consistent with the overriding objective of safety, and the Board's conviction that operation of the Space Shuttle, and all human space-flight, is a developmental activity with high inherent risks.

SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA↗
NASA NTRS2004

Computational Aerodynamics of Shuttle Orbiter Damage Scenarios in Support of the Columbia Accident Investigation

In support of the Columbia Accident Investigation, inviscid computations of the aerodynamic characteristics for various Shuttle Orbiter damage scenarios were performed using the FELISA unstructured CFD solver. Computed delta aerodynamics were compared with the reconstructed delta aerodynamics in order to postulate a progression of damage through the flight trajectory. By performing computations at hypervelocity flight and CF4 tunnel conditions, a bridge was provided between wind tunnel testing in Langley's 20-Inch CF4 facility and the flight environment experienced by Columbia during re-entry. The rapid modeling capability of the unstructured methodology allowed the computational effort to keep pace with the wind tunnel and, at times, guide the wind tunnel efforts. These computations provided a detailed view of the flowfield characteristics and the contribution of orbiter components (such as the vertical tail and wing) to aerodynamic forces and moments that were unavailable from wind tunnel testing. The damage scenarios are grouped into three categories. Initially, single and multiple missing full RCC panels were analyzed to determine the effect of damage location and magnitude on the aerodynamics. Next is a series of cases with progressive damage, increasing in severity, in the region of RCC panel 9. The final group is a set of wing leading edge and windward surface deformations that model possible structural deformation of the wing skin due to internal heating of the wing structure. By matching the aerodynamics from selected damage scenarios to the reconstructed flight aerodynamics, a progression of damage that is consistent with the flight data, debris forensics, and wind tunnel data is postulated.

Bibb, Karen L.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. Volume Three

The Columbia Accident Investigation Board's (CAIB) independent investigation into the February 1, 2003 destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia produced a six volume report. This is Volume III of the report. Volume III contains other technical documents produced by NASA and other organizations, which were provided to the CAIB in support of its inquiry into the tragedy. Technical documents included in the report are: Appendix E.1 CoFR Endorsements; Appendix E.2 STS-107 Image Analysis Team Final Report; Appendix E.3 An Assessment of Potential Material Candidates for the 'Flight Day 2', Radar Object Observed during the NASA Mission STS-107; Appendix E.4 Columbia Early Sighting Assessment Team Final Report.

STS-107↗
NASA NTRS2005

The Application of Electron Microscopy Techniques to the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation

The Space Shuttle Columbia was returning from a 16-day research mission, STS- 107, with nominal system performance prior to the beginning of the entry interface into earth's upper atmosphere. Approximately one minute and twenty four seconds into the peak heating region of the entry interface, an off-nominal temperature rise was observed in the left main landing gear brake line. Nearly seven minutes later, all contact was lost with Columbia. Debris was observed periodically exiting the Shuttle's flight path throughout the reentry profile over California, Nevada, and New Mexico, until its final breakup over Texas. During the subsequent investigation, electron microscopy techniques were crucial in revealing the location of the fatal damage that resulted in the loss of Columbia and her crew.

Shah, Sandeep↗
NASA NTRS2003

NASA's Space Shuttle Columbia: Synopsis of the Report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board

NASA's space shuttle Columbia broke apart on February 1, 2003 as it returned to Earth from a 16-day science mission. All seven astronauts aboard were killed. NASA created the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB), chaired by Adm. (Ret.) Harold Gehman, to investigate the accident. The Board released its report (available at [http://www.caib.us]) on August 26, 2003, concluding that the tragedy was caused by technical and organizational failures. The CAIB report included 29 recommendations, 15 of which the Board specified must be completed before the shuttle returns to flight status. This report provides a brief synopsis of the Board's conclusions, recommendations, and observations. Further information on Columbia and issues for Congress are available in CRS Report RS21408. This report will not be updated.

Smith, Marcia S.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Renewed Commitment to Excellence: An Assessment of the NASA Agency-Wide Applicability of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report

The Space Shuttle fleet has been grounded since the Columbia accident. As a result, 'Return to Flight' has become not just a phrase but a program and the global of virtually everyone associated with NASA. Even those who are not affiliated with the Shuttle Program are looking forward to the safe and successful completion of the next Shuttle mission. In this recovery process, NASA will be guided by the Report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). The CAIB was an investigating body, convened by NASA Administrator O'Keefe the day of the Columbia accident, according to procedures established after the loss of Space Challenger.

SPACE SHUTTLE COLUMBIA↗
NASA NTRS2003

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. Volume Four

This is Volume Four of a set of six reports produced by NASA and other organizations which were provided to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) in support of its inquiry into the February 1, 2003 destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia. The Technical Documents included in this volume are: Appendix F.1 Water Absorption by Foam; Appendix F.2 Follow the TPS; Appendix F.3 MADS Sensor Data; Appendix F.4 ET Cryoinsulation; Appendix F.5 Space Shuttle STS-107 Columbia Accident Investigation, and External Tank Working Group Final Report - Volume 1.

CRYOINSULATION↗
NASA NTRS2026

NASA Talks: Space Shuttle Columbia - Lessons Learned: Columbia Reconstruction, Investigation, Causes and Key Takeaways

On February 25, 2026, this NASA Talk was held regarding the Space Shuttle Columbia (Columbia Launch & Recovery, Columbia Reconstruction, Investigation, Causes & Key Takeaways). Crew & Thermal System Division (EC) partnered with Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and Engineering Directorate (EA) to bring these talks to Johnson Space Center (JSC) centering on what led up to and transpired after the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Some recovered debris was on exhibit during the talks. NASA Mishap Program Specialist David Erickson presented this talk. Mr. Erickson supports NASA mishap investigations and assists with the development of NASA's new Columbia Learning Center at KSC. This talk was timely and a solemn reminder of the critical importance of diligence, safety, and excellence in our work. EA Director Julie Kramer White welcomed the 400+ center-wide in-person audience, and EC Division Chief Rubik Sheth introduced the speakers. This event was held in the JSC Teague Auditorium, recorded, and executed by the EC in-house STAR Productions team. This record includes an mp4 video with a run time of 32 min. 31 sec.; in color; with sound.

NASA Talks↗
NASA NTRS2003

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. Volume Two

Volume II of the Report contains appendices that were cited in Volume I. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board produced many of these appendices as working papers during the investigation into the February 1, 2003 destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Other appendices were produced by other organizations (mainly NASA) in support of the Board investigation. In the case of documents that have been published by others, they are included here in the interest of establishing a complete record, but often at less than full page size. Contents include: CAIB Technical Documents Cited in the Report: Reader's Guide to Volume II; Appendix D. a Supplement to the Report; Appendix D.b Corrections to Volume I of the Report; Appendix D.1 STS-107 Training Investigation; Appendix D.2 Payload Operations Checklist 3; Appendix D.3 Fault Tree Closure Summary; Appendix D.4 Fault Tree Elements - Not Closed; Appendix D.5 Space Weather Conditions; Appendix D.6 Payload and Payload Integration; Appendix D.7 Working Scenario; Appendix D.8 Debris Transport Analysis; Appendix D.9 Data Review and Timeline Reconstruction Report; Appendix D.10 Debris Recovery; Appendix D.11 STS-107 Columbia Reconstruction Report; Appendix D.12 Impact Modeling; Appendix D.13 STS-107 In-Flight Options Assessment; Appendix D.14 Orbiter Major Modification (OMM) Review; Appendix D.15 Maintenance, Material, and Management Inputs; Appendix D.16 Public Safety Analysis; Appendix D.17 MER Manager's Tiger Team Checklist; Appendix D.18 Past Reports Review; Appendix D.19 Qualification and Interpretation of Sensor Data from STS-107; Appendix D.20 Bolt Catcher Debris Analysis.

CAIB (COLUMBIA ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD)↗
NASA NTRS2003

Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report. Volume Six

In the course of its inquiry into the February 1, 2003 destruction of the Space Shuttle Columbia, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board conducted a series of public hearings at Houston, Texas; Cape Canaveral, Florida; and Washington, DC. Testimony from these hearings was recorded and then transcribed. This appendix, Volume VI of the Report, is a compilation of those transcripts. Contents: Transcripts of Board Public Hearings; Appendix H.1 March 6, 2003 Houston, Texas; Appendix H.2 March 17, 2003 Houston, Texas; Appendix H.3 March 18, 2003 Houston, Texas; Appendix H. 4 March 25, 2003 Cape Canaveral, Florida; Appendix H.5 March 26, 2003 Cape Canaveral, Florida; Appendix H.6 April 7, 2003 Houston, Texas; Appendix H.7 April 8, 2003 Houston, Texas; Appendix H.8 April 23, 2003 Houston, Texas; Appendix H.9 May 6, 2003 Houston, Texas; Appendix H.10 June 12, 2003 Washington, DC.

CAIB (COLUMBIA ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION BOARD)↗
NASA NTRS2003

Internal Flow Thermal/Fluid Modeling of STS-107 Port Wing in Support of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board

As part of the aero-thermodynamics team supporting the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAB), the Marshall Space Flight Center was asked to perform engineering analyses of internal flows in the port wing. The aero-thermodynamics team was split into internal flow and external flow teams with the support being divided between shorter timeframe engineering methods and more complex computational fluid dynamics. In order to gain a rough order of magnitude type of knowledge of the internal flow in the port wing for various breach locations and sizes (as theorized by the CAB to have caused the Columbia re-entry failure), a bulk venting model was required to input boundary flow rates and pressures to the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses. This paper summarizes the modeling that was done by MSFC in Thermal Desktop. A venting model of the entire Orbiter was constructed in FloCAD based on Rockwell International s flight substantiation analyses and the STS-107 reentry trajectory. Chemical equilibrium air thermodynamic properties were generated for SINDA/FLUINT s fluid property routines from a code provided by Langley Research Center. In parallel, a simplified thermal mathematical model of the port wing, including the Thermal Protection System (TPS), was based on more detailed Shuttle re-entry modeling previously done by the Dryden Flight Research Center. Once the venting model was coupled with the thermal model of the wing structure with chemical equilibrium air properties, various breach scenarios were assessed in support of the aero-thermodynamics team. The construction of the coupled model and results are presented herein.

Sharp, John R.↗
NASA NTRS2005

Aeromedical Lessons from the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation

This paper presents the aeromedical lessons learned from the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation. The contents include: 1) Introduction and Mission Response Team (MRT); 2) Primary Disaster Field Office (DFO); 3) Mishap Investigation Team (MIT); 4) Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Mishap Response Plan; 5) Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP); and 6) STS-107 Crew Surgeon.

Pool, Sam L.↗
NASA NTRS2004

Microscopic and Metallurgical Aspects of the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident Investigation and Reconstruction

The Space Shuttle Columbia was descending for a landing at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) on February 1, 2003. Approximately 20 minutes prior to touchdown, the Columbia began disintegrating over the western United States; the majority of debris eventually impacted in eastern Texas and western Louisiana. A monumental effort eventually recovered approximately 84,000 pieces of debris, approximately 38% of the Orbiter's original dry weight. The debris was transported to KSC, where the items were catalogued and evaluated. Critical areas of interest, such as the left and right leading edge surfaces and the underside of the ship, were placed upon a grid to aid in the reconstruction. Items of interest included metallic structures, reinforced carbon-carbon composites, and ceramic heat insulation tiles. Many of the leading edge elements had re-solidified metallic deposits spattered on them. These deposits became known as slag and were one of the main focuses of the investigation. In order to help determine the sequence of events inside the left wing during the accident, the slag's composition, layering order, and directionality of deposition were studied. A myriad of analytical tests were performed in an attempt to ascertain the compositional and depositional characteristics of selected slag deposits, including the ordering of deposited layers within each individual slag deposit harvested. Initially, Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (SEM/EDX) were performed to quickly characterize the overall composition of individual slag deposits: SEM utilizes a narrowlyfocused high-energy electron beam impinging upon a specimen. The incident beam excites and liberates lower energy secondary electrons, which are detected and analyzed, providing a visual representation of the sample's surface topography. EDX also relies on an incident electron beam, except an EDX unit measures X-ray energies generated by the impinging beam. Each element generates a unique X-ray signature; the EDX detector measures these discreet energies. EDX actually penetrates approximately 2 microns into the bulk of the sample. However, random examination of various portions of slag, coupled with the semiquantitative nature of the SEM/EDX analysis, did not yield convincingly pertinent data. Therefore, X-ray dot mapping was conducted, which provided more understandable data, both in terms of slag layering and composition. An X-ray dot map is generated by performing numerous EDX scans for individual elements, then compiling the scans in a visual representation. Eventually, specimens consisting of not only the slag, but of the adjacent RCC substrate as well were cross-sectioned. X-Ray dot mapping of the materialographicallymounted and -polished cross- sections provided a visual representation of both the layering sequence and compositional characteristics of the slag. Contemporaneously, Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analysis/X-Ray Photoelectron Spectroscopy (ESCA/XPS) and powdered X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) were performed to further characterize the deposits and to attempt to identify what, if any, compounds were present. The ESCA/XPS analysis allowed the analyst to "sputter" into the sample with an electron gun, aiding in the identification of the layering sequence. XPS uses photons, rather than electrons, which impinge upon the surface of the sample. XPS measures the electrons emitted from within the first 5 nm of the sample's surface. The XRD measures the scatter angles of incident X-rays; the angle and intensity of scatter depend upon the crystalline structure of the pulverized sample. XRD is considered a qualitative rather than quantitative technique. ESCA/XPS revealed that the final layer to deposit was predominantly carbonaceous. XRD was successful in identifying specific compounds, such as Al 2O3, Al and/or Al3 21SiO47, mullite (3(Al2)O3 -SiO2), and nickel-aluminides. Eventually, Electron MicroProbe Analysis (EMPA) was conducted on the marialographically-prepared cross- sections of selected slag deposits. Microprobe combines SEM and Wavelength Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy (WDS), and, like EDX, uses a narrowly-focused high-energy electron beam impinging upon a specimen to elicit, in the case of EPMA, characteristic X-rays with specific wavelengths. This quantitative, analytical tool proved the most useful in determining depositional layering and composition of the slag deposits. This information was utilized in verifying the location of the breach in the left leading edge of the wing of the Columbia.

McDaniels, Steven J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Introduction of the Space Shuttle Columbia Accident, Investigation Details, Findings and Crew Survival Investigation Report

As the Space Shuttle Program comes to an end, it is important that the lessons learned from the Columbia accident be captured and understood by those who will be developing future aerospace programs and supporting current programs. Aeromedical lessons learned from the Accident were presented at AsMA in 2005. This Panel will update that information, closeout the lessons learned, provide additional information on the accident and provide suggestions for the future. To set the stage, an overview of the accident is required. The Space Shuttle Columbia was returning to Earth with a crew of seven astronauts on 1Feb, 2003. It disintegrated along a track extending from California to Louisiana and observers along part of the track filmed the breakup of Columbia. Debris was recovered from Littlefield, Texas to Fort Polk, Louisiana, along a 567 statute mile track; the largest ever recorded debris field. The Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) concluded its investigation in August 2003, and released their findings in a report published in February 2004. NASA recognized the importance of capturing the lessons learned from the loss of Columbia and her crew and the Space Shuttle Program managers commissioned the Spacecraft Crew Survival Integrated Investigation Team (SCSIIT) to accomplish this. Their task was to perform a comprehensive analysis of the accident, focusing on factors and events affecting crew survival, and to develop recommendations for improving crew survival, including the design features, equipment, training and procedures intended to protect the crew. NASA released the Columbia Crew Survival Investigation Report in December 2008. Key personnel have been assembled to give you an overview of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident, the medical response, the medico-legal issues, the SCSIIT findings and recommendations and future NASA flight surgeon spacecraft accident response training. Educational Objectives: Set the stage for the Panel to address the investigation, medico-legal issues, the Spacecraft Crew Survival Integrated Investigation Team report and training for accident response.

Chandler, Michael↗